Bible History

[BigRo]

If this isn’t the right forum, please let me know where I should be.

It is my understanding that the books of the New Testament were written some time between 40 AD more or less and certainly no later than 95 or so. Lately, I heard on the airwaves that all the books were written after the razing of Jerusalem by the Romans around 70-77 AD.

Is there some new scholarship on this subject? What gives.

 

[EphelDuath]

The Gospel of Matthew has a passage where Jesus predicts that the Temple will be destroyed. So secularists (and the people who wrote the footnotes for the New American Bible) who believe that prophecies of the future are impossible (because there is no God to reveal such things to man) thus argue that this means the Gospel has to have been written after the Temple was destroyed.

While that logic is absolutely absurd (you can’t presuppose that miracles can’t happen; but even if it wasn’t divinely-inspired, I don’t see how Jesus couldn’t have simply struck a lucky guess), it goes even a step further in that you’ll also hear atheists tell you that we know Jesus didn’t actually predict the fall of the Temple because “scholars know” that the Gospels were written after it was destroyed. Totally circular

 

[BigRo]

Thanks for the reply ED. I’m aware of the passage. The “secular” logic you mentioned doesn’t make any sense. If the writers were aware that the prophesy had come to fruition or were attempting to puff up Jesus’s reputation wouldn’t they have hearkened the prophesy? I would think certainly that John’s gospel would have certainly used that as a keystone argument for Christ’s divinity. I have always understood that this factoid is exigent evidence that the Gospels and most of the books were written before the razing of Jerusalem.

 

[dronald]

The Gospel of Matthew has a passage where Jesus predicts that the Temple will be destroyed. So secularists (and the people who wrote the footnotes for the New American Bible) who believe that prophecies of the future are impossible (because there is no God to reveal such things to man) thus argue that this means the Gospel has to have been written after the Temple was destroyed.

While that logic is absolutely absurd (you can’t presuppose that miracles can’t happen; but even if it wasn’t divinely-inspired, I don’t see how Jesus couldn’t have simply struck a lucky guess), it goes even a step further in that you’ll also hear atheists tell you that we know Jesus didn’t actually predict the fall of the Temple because “scholars know” that the Gospels were written after it was destroyed. Totally circular

In addition, the Prophecy also occurs in Mark and is often said by the secular that it was written during its destruction.

It’s a hard stance to support but “logically” it’s the one to take if one does not believe.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I recommend reading the following article, there is information for views on dating the Gospels and views from scholars on dating the Gospels

pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/the-early-eyewitnesses-of-jesus

 

[PietroPaolo]

If this isn’t the right forum, please let me know where I should be.

It is my understanding that the books of the New Testament were written some time between 40 AD more or less and certainly no later than 95 or so. Lately, I heard on the airwaves that all the books were written after the razing of Jerusalem by the Romans around 70-77 AD.

Is there some new scholarship on this subject? What gives.

The evidence is all on the side of the entire NT being written before AD 70. You’re hearing all that noise b/c of the new bestseller “Zealot” which Jimmy Akin looks at in depth HERE. It’s another installment of the never-ending saga of the “historical” Jesus (who is neither historical nor Jesus) wherein the author recasts Jesus to be who he wants Him to be.

 

[triumphguy]

The Gospel of Matthew has a passage where Jesus predicts that the Temple will be destroyed. So secularists (and the people who wrote the footnotes for the New American Bible) who believe that prophecies of the future are impossible (because there is no God to reveal such things to man) thus argue that this means the Gospel has to have been written after the Temple was destroyed.

While that logic is absolutely absurd (you can’t presuppose that miracles can’t happen; but even if it wasn’t divinely-inspired, I don’t see how Jesus couldn’t have simply struck a lucky guess), it goes even a step further in that you’ll also hear atheists tell you that we know Jesus didn’t actually predict the fall of the Temple because “scholars know” that the Gospels were written after it was destroyed. Totally circular

Are you saying those who worked on the NAB don’t believe in God?

Seriously?

 

[bcuster]

Some of the commentary on the books of the NAB was heavily influenced by Protestant Biblical Scholarship in the late 19th -mid 20th centuries. The Fathers of the Church (some of whom actually knew the apostles) say differently. If you read (or listen) to Dr. Scott Hahn you get background on this and I think a more Catholic viewpoint.

 

[Cyberseeker]

Some of the commentary on the books of the NAB was heavily influenced by Protestant Biblical Scholarship in the late 19th -mid 20th centuries. The Fathers of the Church (some of whom actually knew the apostles) say differently. If you read (or listen) to Dr. Scott Hahn you get background on this and I think a more Catholic viewpoint.

No probs; Protestants don’t mind quoting the fathers. Have a look at this from Clement speaking to Jews prior to AD 70 (Recognitions ch. 24)
“We have ascertained beyond that God is much rather displeased with the sacrifices you offer, the time of sacrifices having now passed away. And because you will not admit that the time for offering victims is past, therefore the Temple will be destroyed”

This comment clearly had Jesus’ words in Matthew 24 in mind.

 

[EphelDuath]

Are you saying those who worked on the NAB don’t believe in God?

Seriously?

A lot of people worked on the NAB. A handful of bishops and accredited Catholic scholars, yes, but keep in kind that the first edition came out in 1970, which was the heyday for heterodoxy to be passed off as “in the spirit of Vatican II”. Such as it was, the NAB committee also included Protestants, and – yup – atheists.

Though most of that is somewhat irrelevant since I can’t specifically tell you who was responsible for what in the final version. That being said the footnotes clearly are trying to tell the reader that miracles can’t actually happen, that the purported authors weren’t so and they were in fact liars trying to accredit themselves with a prestigious name, and that several events in the NT didn’t actually happen.

 

[dronald]

No probs; Protestants don’t mind quoting the fathers. Have a look at this from Clement speaking to Jews prior to AD 70 (Recognitions ch. 24)
“We have ascertained beyond that God is much rather displeased with the sacrifices you offer, the time of sacrifices having now passed away. And because you will not admit that the time for offering victims is past, therefore the Temple will be destroyed”

This comment clearly had Jesus’ words in Matthew 24 in mind.

The evidence is strong for an early dating of all the writings, much credit goes to the Church Father’s. However, many will take that quote you just quoted and try and set the date between 100-120.

That’s just the way it is.

 

[mdcpensive1]

The Gospel of Matthew has a passage where Jesus predicts that the Temple will be destroyed. So secularists (and the people who wrote the footnotes for the New American Bible) who believe that prophecies of the future are impossible (because there is no God to reveal such things to man) thus argue that this means the Gospel has to have been written after the Temple was destroyed.

Very good post. I guess Isaiah also had to be written after the Temple was destroyed because of the predicted virgin birth and suffering servant!!! Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

 

[Abu]

Not only are the facts of Jesus’ miracles recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries.

Even Adolf von Harnack, a rationalist historian of high repute among Rationalist and Protestants, wrote that the Synoptic Gospels were written before 70 A.D. – before the fall of Jerusalem, and accepted the tradition that St Luke derived his information on the infancy of Jesus from Mary His Mother. Theologische Quartalsch, Tubingen 1929, IV, p 443-4].
[See Sheehan/Joseph, *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, 2001, p 89, 93]

Very revealing is The Hebrew Christ, Claude Tresmontant, Franciscan Herald Press, 1989, on the origins and dating of the Gospels. As Bishop John Charles Thomas writes in the foreword: “There is nothing in the least unscientific in postulating that there was only a brief period of oral transmission before some of the Gospel materials began to be set down.”

The majority of “scholars” fail again. See the works of Jean Carmignac, John A. T. Robinson, and Claude Tresmontant, who mainly date the NT books prior to A.D. 70, with some of them written in the 30s.

Tresmontant shows in 318 pages, that “all four of the Gospels, as well as some of the other New Testament books, were evidently translations into Greek from earlier texts originally composed in Hebrew.” (p 319). Others agreeing include Jean Carmignac, Greek linguist John Wenham, the earliest being Anglican Bishop John Robinson.

For Matthew, there is evidence from the early church to support an Aramaic original; Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Augustine.